Wow! Harding’s lawyer Charles Shearson sure makes some powerful points in Harding’s defense. I expect the verdict to go well for Harding.
EuclidWow! Harding’s lawyer Charles Shearson sure makes some powerful points in Harding’s defense. I expect the verdict to go well for Harding.
If the jury believes that argument - I have a bridge to sell them!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Euclid Wow! Harding’s lawyer Charles Shearson sure makes some powerful points in Harding’s defense. I expect the verdict to go well for Harding. If the jury believes that argument - I have a bridge to sell them!
Euclid Wow! Harding’s lawyer Charles Shearson sure makes some powerful points in Harding’s defense. I expect the verdict to go well for Harding.
The key point is whether the failure to follow rules rises to criminal negligence. There is no question that he failed to follow the rules, but there are certain thresholds that must be met in order to prove the criminal part.
One must remember that a lot of people died.
Somebody has to pay. Emotion sometimes trumps evidence.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 One must remember that a lot of people died. Somebody has to pay. Emotion sometimes trumps evidence.
I tend to think that the kind of justice the town wants is to make MM&A management pay for the injustice, rather than Harding. I suspect most of the town is sympathetic toward Harding and feels he is being made a scapegoat by management who the town feels ran a company culture that put profit before safety. They probably also resent the fact that management has escaped being tried for their part in the disaster.
There is a strong grass roots sentiment that hates corporations as seeing them as victimizing their workers by “corporate greed.” There is also a very strong labor based movement that blames MM&A management for causing the disaster, and for trying to pin the blame on Harding.
So for as strong as the cry for justice may be, it may not be Harding that they want justice from. So they may vindicate Harding just to send that message that the real guilty have gone free.
Euclid tree68 One must remember that a lot of people died. Somebody has to pay. Emotion sometimes trumps evidence. That is true. There will be a concentrated demand for justice with so many deaths. That could make it harder for Harding to get off easy. However I wonder if the demand for justice will be satisfied by convicting Harding. I tend to think that the kind of justice the town wants is to make MM&A management pay for the injustice, rather than Harding. I suspect most of the town is sympathetic toward Harding and feels he is being made a scapegoat by management who the town feels ran a company culture that put profit before safety. They probably also resent the fact that management has escaped being tried for their part in the disaster. There is a strong grass roots sentiment that hates corporations as seeing them as victimizing their workers by “corporate greed.” There is also a very strong labor based movement that blames MM&A management for causing the disaster, and for trying to pin the blame on Harding. So for as strong as the cry for justice may be, it may not be Harding that they want justice from. So they may vindicate Harding just to send that message that the real guilty have gone free.
One must remember that a lot of people died. Somebody has to pay. Emotion sometimes trumps evidence.
That is true. There will be a concentrated demand for justice with so many deaths. That could make it harder for Harding to get off easy. However I wonder if the demand for justice will be satisfied by convicting Harding.
The corporation hasn't been charged - Harding has. Harding will 'take one for the team' - no willingly, not correctly, but he is the prime one that has been charged and as Tree says 'someone has to pay'.
BaltACD Euclid tree68 One must remember that a lot of people died. Somebody has to pay. Emotion sometimes trumps evidence. That is true. There will be a concentrated demand for justice with so many deaths. That could make it harder for Harding to get off easy. However I wonder if the demand for justice will be satisfied by convicting Harding. I tend to think that the kind of justice the town wants is to make MM&A management pay for the injustice, rather than Harding. I suspect most of the town is sympathetic toward Harding and feels he is being made a scapegoat by management who the town feels ran a company culture that put profit before safety. They probably also resent the fact that management has escaped being tried for their part in the disaster. There is a strong grass roots sentiment that hates corporations as seeing them as victimizing their workers by “corporate greed.” There is also a very strong labor based movement that blames MM&A management for causing the disaster, and for trying to pin the blame on Harding. So for as strong as the cry for justice may be, it may not be Harding that they want justice from. So they may vindicate Harding just to send that message that the real guilty have gone free. The corporation hasn't been charged - Harding has. Harding will 'take one for the team' - no willingly, not correctly, but he is the prime one that has been charged and as Tree says 'someone has to pay'.
Maybe. Maybe not. Nobody has to be found guilty of criminal negligence, and not everyone has a say in the decision.
Pardon me, as I am new to this forum and thread, and have not followed this case closely. But, as a Maine resident, I was deeply saddened by the tragedy. (Also, in my former working life as a photographer, I twice passed thru Mégantic by rail, once in the cab of a Via Alco PA, (or whatever the exact designation).)
I get why the engineer is on trial. But why are the other men charged also? Is it that the government is saying they trained the engineer improperly?
I hope they don‘t throw the book at these guys. Who could predict the engine would catch fire, and the fire dept would shut it down? This was NOT criminal negligence.
These guys will have to spend the rest of their lives agonizing over this anyway.
And the railroad should be on trial, IMO.
Still in training.
LithoniaOperatorAnd the railroad should be on trial, IMO.
This seems to be a widespread sentiment with those familar with the disaster.
Here is a link to a highly detailed explanation of the case for Harding’s defense made by lawyers Charles Shearson and Tom Walsh. Rarely have I seen this much detailed information in any of the news reports on this case so far. The point to bear in mind is that this case is not just about breaking a railroad rule. Rules can be broken simply by forgetting about them. For breaking rules, you can lose your job. But this case is about whether rule braking also amounted to a crime for which the penalty can be life in prison.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/trial-megantic-rail-disater-1.4477207
LithoniaOperatorI hope they don‘t throw the book at these guys. Who could predict the engine would catch fire, and the fire dept would shut it down? This was NOT criminal negligence.
A key factor in the entire incident is that the engineer did not set sufficient brakes on the train. He set the brakes on the five locomotives and two cars adjacent to the locomotives. He then relied on the independent brakes on the locomotives to hold the train. When the locomotive was shut down, the air for those independent brakes went away and the train ran away.
Had he set brakes on a number of the actual cars in the train (the tank cars), we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Regardless of questions about the effectiveness of securement tests, had he at least set the handbrakes on the tank cars, then tested securement by simply releasing all of the brakes on the locomotives, he would have been assured that the train would stay put.
As I recall, this was in contravention of securement rules in place at the time, never mind what we have today. The others are on trial because they were apparently aware of how the train was (inadequately) secured and did nothing about it.
It appears that MMA may not have been as diligent as they could have been on ensuring that their personnel abided by the rules in place at the time. In that respect, they should certainly be held accountable. But MMA is no more, and it also appears that it was a company-wide culture, so it would be difficult to point fingers at one person in particular.
The poor safety culture is, I believe, being held up as a defense for the engineer. He was only doing what he was expected to do.
The operator has more than his paid obligations or duties; apart from his obligations to convention, practices, values, and specified duties, he owes a duty of care to those who might otherwise be adversely impacted by his decisions. I suspect that this is going to be the approach of the prosecutors. What ought to have been reasonably foreseen either as a consequence of his actions or his inaction? At what point does any one individual have an obligation to challenge a practice that is patently or demonstrably unsafe? Or, to refuse to comply and to formally object?
LithoniaOperator Pardon me, as I am new to this forum and thread, and have not followed this case closely. But, as a Maine resident, I was deeply saddened by the tragedy. (Also, in my former working life as a photographer, I twice passed thru Mégantic by rail, once in the cab of a Via Alco PA, (or whatever the exact designation).) I get why the engineer is on trial. But why are the other men charged also? Is it that the government is saying they trained the engineer improperly? I hope they don‘t throw the book at these guys. Who could predict the engine would catch fire, and the fire dept would shut it down? This was NOT criminal negligence. These guys will have to spend the rest of their lives agonizing over this anyway. And the railroad should be on trial, IMO.
Putting the railroad on trial won't work, locomotives and ties can't testify.
These people are the railroad.
I do hope for a particular outcome.
What matters to relatives and friends in Lac Megantic is that MMA and the engineer and others involved be held responsible for the deaths of those poor victims of negligence and incompetence.
Obviously, I meant the individuals who were in the management (particularly on the training and operations-practices side) of the MMA. Yes, I know the railroad business-entity is now defunct.
Jury begins deliberations tomorrow:
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/montreal/jury-begins-deliberations-thursday-in-lac-mégantic-rail-disaster-trial-1.4481343
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Can someone please fill me in on some basic facts about this accident?
Was this a common location for MMA crews to park a train?
How many engines did the train have? (I would think that 74 loaded tanks would have required at least three.)
On the run before the train was parked, was every unit functioning?
Was only one unit left running when the train was parked? If so, did Harding know that unit had issues? (I’m wondering if the accident would have been prevented if a different unit had been left running instead.)
Finally: did the runaway train roll engine(s) first, or engine(s) last?
The TSB report should answer your questions, and then some. It is a long read but very informative:
http://tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2013/r13d0054/r13d0054.asp
For quick answers to your specific questions, Nantes (the top of the hill) was the normal spot for MMA to park eastbound trains, the train had 5 locomotives and all were operating, but the trailing 4 were shut down to save fuel after arriving at Nantes. The train ran away forward, with the engines leading.
In this specific case it turns out the runaway would have been prevented if another locomotive had been left running. But the train still needed to be properly secured with handbrakes, as even normally operating locomotives may develop a problem and shut themselves down, with no advance warning.
This is such a depressing story, and I hope those people promoting the stupid idea of autonomous trains will be sobered by studying this case.
Thanks, SD70Dude.
guetem1The report I read stated something like 17 factors in this accident, take away any one of those 17 and the accident would not have happened.
That's almost always the case. If you want to get philosophical about it, consider the "butterfly effect:"
Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different—but it's also equally possible that the set of conditions without the butterfly flapping its wings is the set that leads to a tornado.
The original statement was a seagull, not a butterfly, but the concept that very small events can eventually have very large results remains.
aegrotatio This is such a depressing story, and I hope those people promoting the stupid idea of autonomous trains will be sobered by studying this case.
Given that the primary cause of this tragedy was human error (Harding and others) your analysis is illogical.
This article has some interesting points, and the judge seems like quite the character:
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/montreal/lac-mégantic-rail-disaster-1.4481968
The deliberations continue.
He didn't seem to care for me...
Randy Stahl He didn't seem to care for me...
Why not? You are a walking definition of "expert witness" in this case.
They wouldn't admit him as an 'expert witness'. Note the line in the story that says "No Crown witness could explain why the fire in the stack started"? Mr. Stahl has covered that here, in great and correct technical detail, and I doubt he could not have done so as well, or better, under oath in court; I have to wonder why the Crown chose to keep his testimony on the subject isolated in a way so detrimental to their case.
I did notice that. Perhaps the prosecution felt that explaining the true nature of the failure could influence the jury to shift blame away from those on trial?
I still don't understand why the TSB report was ruled inadmissable.
SD70DudeI still don't understand why the TSB report was ruled inadmissable.
I think because it only described the technical occurrence and findings; it pointedly did not speak to personal culpability, which is what the current trial is 'supposed' to be about. I also suspect it qualifies as 'hearsay' evidence (the TSB examiners on the stand, recapitulating their conclusions as direct evidence and being available for cross, is the way the information in the TSB report would have been admissible) -- and I don't have a problem with excluding the report itself if all the relevant points were established by Crown witnesses in the actual proceedings. How you could have a 'weak case' against Harding and Labrie, if that alone were done truthfully, would be a mystery to me.
Can someone, preferably Canadian, explain to me what the strategic point of the evident effort to throw Francois Daigle under the bus as a credible witness is about?
Overmod I think because it only described the technical occurrence and findings;
I think because it only described the technical occurrence and findings;
And the judge was complaining that the cause of the locomotive fire was not adequetely explained!?
I can understand wanting the jury to hear everything in first-person from those involved.
Because the crown knew that the locomotive did not cause the train to roll away.
I didn't get the feeling the judge didn't care for me , I was told by the crown lawyers that he wasn't being nice to me. I guess I didn't pick up on it but they did.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.